PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Stevenson said, given what is clearly shown from international evidence and summarised by the Law Commission, anyone advocating for the continued widespread use of prison informant evidence, “is not serving the truth-seeking goals of the criminal justice system”. Even former justice minister Andew Little had labelled prison informants “abject liars”, Stevenson noted. “That’s the unvarnished truth. “And let’s get on with it and sort this out, because it’s just embarrassing to the reputation of our justice system that we’re one of the few countries in the world that’s still regularly using this evidence.” Stevenson said, at one stage, he had five consecutive murder trials, where the police and prosecutors produced jailhouse snitches claiming his client confessed to the crime while in prison. “That really reveals the embarrassing problem, doesn’t it. What are the chances that in all of these cases, all of those people just confessed to others - it’s preposterous."
-----------------------------------------------------------
—————————————————————---
PHOTO CAPTION: "The Law Commission is recommending the controversial use of jailhouse snitches in our courts, should be made much harder."
GIST: "The Law Commission has strongly recommended evidence from notoriously unreliable jailhouse snitches only be heard in exceptional circumstances.
The Commission, which advises the government on the country’s laws, is urging politicians to make this highly controversial evidence inadmissible, unless numerous factors can convince a judge it is reliable.
Prison informants, or jailhouse snitches, are prisoners who come forward claiming a fellow inmate confessed to them, and are frequently used by police and prosecutors in high profile cases, and often provided with incentives to do so.
Their evidence is highly persuasive for juries, but has been shown to be one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions worldwide.
In New Zealand, they have featured in many cases, including those of Arthur Allan Thomas, David Tamihere, Scott Watson, Teina Pora, Mark Lundy, Stephen Hudson, and in the trial of two men charged with murdering Palmiro MacDonald.
For their evidence, jailhouse snitches are often provided with better prison conditions, reduced sentences for their own crimes, support from police at parole hearings, and the possibility of financial rewards.
For years, concerns have been raised about their use, but the Crown and courts have argued they may be telling the truth, and it is for jurors to decide if they are honest or not.
But now the Law Commission, as part of its review of the Evidence Act, has recommended their evidence be excluded, unless it is proven on the balance of probabilities to a judge that what they are claiming is reliable.
To ascertain this, a judge can consider if their claims led to the discovery of other evidence; whether the informant could have learnt of the evidence elsewhere; whether any incentives have been offered or received; whether they have any other motives to give unreliable evidence; whether they have a record of lying, or have offered snitch evidence previously.
The Commission can only make recommendations, and it will be up to the government to decide if it agrees, and wants to amend the law.
Wellington barrister Christopher Stevenson, who has highlighted the danger of jailhouse snitches for years, says the need to presumptively exclude this evidence is obvious to anyone who has looked seriously at the issue, and is urgent.
“But it’s been urgent since the 1980s when the problem with it became known.
“It’s now known, indisputably, as one of the most dangerous categories of evidence within the law.
“It’s contributed to many terrible miscarriages of justice. And the known cases where it’s caused miscarriages of justice are inevitably the tip of the iceberg.”
Stevenson predicted if it was made almost impossible for snitches to make their claims in court, their offers to provide evidence will significantly dry up, because there will be few incentives for them to come forward.
Only three submitters to the Law Commission didn’t support any of the options for change it proposed: Police, Crown Law, and Wellington Crown solicitors, Luke Cunningham Clere.
Stevenson said, given what is clearly shown from international evidence and summarised by the Law Commission, anyone advocating for the continued widespread use of prison informant evidence, “is not serving the truth-seeking goals of the criminal justice system”.
Even former justice minister Andew Little had labelled prison informants “abject liars”, Stevenson noted.
“That’s the unvarnished truth.
“And let’s get on with it and sort this out, because it’s just embarrassing to the reputation of our justice system that we’re one of the few countries in the world that’s still regularly using this evidence.”
Stevenson said, at one stage, he had five consecutive murder trials, where the police and prosecutors produced jailhouse snitches claiming his client confessed to the crime while in prison.
“That really reveals the embarrassing problem, doesn’t it. What are the chances that in all of these cases, all of those people just confessed to others - it’s preposterous.
“The underlying promise of criminal law is not that every guilty person will be convicted, it’s that the innocent won’t be convicted, and the pubic have to have faith that the system will take all steps to ensure that.
“That’s the deal. And this evidence breaches the deal, because we know there’s a high risk of convicting the innocent.
“And the Law Commission has said what’s obvious and inevitable, and has been for a long time, and has to be fixed without delay.”
Anna High, an associate professor at Otago University’s Law School, welcomed the Law Commission’s recommendations, and the extra scrutiny it would bring to prison informant evidence.
High, who has researched the issue, and made a submission to the Commission, said it follows recognition by the Supreme Court, and the Solicitor-General, that this was an area of evidence where greater caution was needed.
“The evidence of jailhouse snitches, as they are commonly known, is one of the classic cases of types of evidence that can lead to false convictions.
“I think it’s fair to say we’ve lagged behind in terms of having specific provisions in place to deal with this sort of evidence. And it’s absolutely true we’ve had several high profile convictions in New Zealand that did involve the use of prison informants, including those notorious cases of wrongful conviction, Teina Pora and Arthur Allan Thomas.”
High said there could well be other cases of wrongful conviction in New Zealand that relied on false jailhouse snitch evidence.
“I’d actually urge the government to listen to the view of the Law Commission. It’s based on research, it’s based on really comprehensive analysis of this issue, and extensive consultation.”
High pointed out that it didn’t mean prison informants would no longer be able to give evidence in our courts. If a judge felt it was essential, and reliable and truthful, they could still allow a jury to hear their evidence.
The Law Commssion’s report on proposed changes to the Evidence Act was published today and is available on its website."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
---------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
---------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.
https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-12348801
————————————————————————————————
MORE VALUABLE WORDS: "As a former public defender, Texas' refusal to delay Ivan Cantu's execution to evaluate new evidence is deeply worrying for the state of our legal system. There should be no room for doubt in a death penalty case. The facts surrounding Cantu's execution should haunt all of us."
Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett; X March 1, 2024.
——————————————————————
